especially rewarding for cells ‘spread’ on coverslips in tissue culture (see Weber &
Osborn, 1979; Brinkley et al. 1980). However, it has not often been successfully
applied to unsectioned tissue cells fixed in situ. This is because the relatively large
thickness of tissue portions usually interferes with antibody penetration, and/or
elution of non-specifically bound antibody (Gorbsky & Borisy, 1985). Hence, our
understanding of cytoskeletal deployment in tissue cells that are actually functioning
and interacting in their usual somatic environments is scanty compared with that
available for cells isolated in tissue culture. How close is the relationship between in
vivo and in vitro cytoskeletal behaviour? Is cytoskeletal configuration and coordination
in tissues very different from that which occurs in tissue culture? The
answers to these questions are crucial for progress in evaluating cytoskeletal
contributions to embryogenesis and tissue organization. In spite of the problems
outlined above, immunofluorescence microscopy can be rewardingly exploited for
such evaluations on occasion. For example, Byers et al. (1980) and Byers & Fujiwara
(1982) have shown that immunofluorescence microscopy can be used to examine the
arrangement of microtubules and actin filaments in sheets of fibroblasts that remain
in situ on the inner surfaces of the scales of certain teleosts after removal of scales
from the organisms. The transparent scales and associated cell layers are then
prepared for immunofluorescence microscopy in much the same way as a coverslip
with attached cells.
especially rewarding for cells ‘spread’ on coverslips in tissue culture (see Weber &
Osborn, 1979; Brinkley et al. 1980). However, it has not often been successfully
applied to unsectioned tissue cells fixed in situ. This is because the relatively large
thickness of tissue portions usually interferes with antibody penetration, and/or
elution of non-specifically bound antibody (Gorbsky & Borisy, 1985). Hence, our
understanding of cytoskeletal deployment in tissue cells that are actually functioning
and interacting in their usual somatic environments is scanty compared with that
available for cells isolated in tissue culture. How close is the relationship between in
vivo and in vitro cytoskeletal behaviour? Is cytoskeletal configuration and coordination
in tissues very different from that which occurs in tissue culture? The
answers to these questions are crucial for progress in evaluating cytoskeletal
contributions to embryogenesis and tissue organization. In spite of the problems
outlined above, immunofluorescence microscopy can be rewardingly exploited for
such evaluations on occasion. For example, Byers et al. (1980) and Byers & Fujiwara
(1982) have shown that immunofluorescence microscopy can be used to examine the
arrangement of microtubules and actin filaments in sheets of fibroblasts that remain
in situ on the inner surfaces of the scales of certain teleosts after removal of scales
from the organisms. The transparent scales and associated cell layers are then
prepared for immunofluorescence microscopy in much the same way as a coverslip
with attached cells.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
![](//thimg.ilovetranslation.com/pic/loading_3.gif?v=b9814dd30c1d7c59_8619)